E-Mail Page  Print  Feedback

Climate Change

www.ourenergy.coop

Lieberman-Warner bill fails

"Deeply flawed legislation"

Senate floor debate on the Lieberman-Warner bill (S.3036) was practically over before it even began. Moving to the floor Monday, June 2, the Senate voted 74-14 to proceed to the bill, but it quickly became clear opponents of the legislation were going to make it difficult.

Our Energy, Our Future; A Dialogue with America

Republican leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday called to the have the entire 492-page climate bill read aloud and into the Congressional Record – an eight-hour ordeal. To end the Republican filibuster and either move ahead with the debate or end it, Democratic leader Harry Reid called for the

A Message from NRECA's Glenn English

procedural vote. Sixty votes were needed to move ahead with the debate. When the vote was taken Friday, June 6, 48 senators voted in favor and 36 voted against it. That was end of Lieberman-Warner.

According to Mike Eggl, Basin Electric senior vice president of External Relations and Communications, the downfall of the Lieberman-Warner bill was simply that the legislation was deeply flawed. “If this country is to move forward with climate legislation, that legislation must not overstep current technology limits and it must not further burden an already strained economy.”

Eggl emphasized that Basin Electric is in favor of reasonable climate legislation. “We know legislation is coming and we’re fully engaged in the process. Our main objective, however, is to ensure that any future legislation does not unduly impact our member-consumers,” he said.

With the books closed on Lieberman-Warner, Basin Electric is looking ahead with the understanding that this bill was just the beginning. “The presidential elections are just around the corner and both candidates are eager to address this issue,” Eggl said. Presidential support was one of the vital elements missing from Lieberman-Warner. President Bush threatened to veto the bill as soon as it hit the Senate floor.

Eggl anticipates more action on climate legislation in the next Congress, in early 2009. “We believe it’s entirely possible that legislation can be written that equally supports technology development, reduces carbon emissions and ensures and ensures consumers won’t have to pay the exorbitant price for it. Lieberman-Warner had none of that.”

Our Energy, Our Future Campaign Asks Second Question

Your voice is being heard on Capitol Hill.

Thanks to co-op grassroots efforts through the Our Energy, Our Future campaign, consumers have sent more than 190,000 messages to their legislators asking what they are doing to ensure we will have the capacity we need to keep the lights on. This wasn't an issue most legislators were thinking about, and now — thanks to you — many are. Congratulations on helping to start a dialogue about this important question!

This week, the Our Energy, Our Future campaign is moving to its second question, which deals with technology investment.

Visit the campaign Web site, www.ourenergy.coop, today to ask your legislators what they are doing to speed the development of new technology that will allow you and other consumers to have the electric power you need while meeting our national climate policy goals. It's time to let legislators know these are important issues to consumers and continue the dialogue.

More information and resources

CRS report

The Congressional Research Service released a report analyzing the costs and benefits of the Lieberman-Warner bill. Key findings of the report:

• Long-term projections are at best speculative, and should be viewed with attentive skepticism.
• The ultimate cost would be determined by the response of the economy to the technological challenges presented in the bill.
• A considerable amount of low-carbon generation will have to be built to meet the reduction requirement.
• Carbon capture and storage (CCS) bonus allowances are effective in encouraging deployment of CCS, accelerating development by 5-10 years.
• Offsets could be a valuable tool for covered utilities to reduce costs and to buy time to further develop new, more efficient technologies.
• The Carbon Market Efficiency Board could have an important effect on the cost of the program through its power to increase the availability of offsets and international credits.
• The Low-Carbon Fuel Standard could significantly raise fuel prices and limit supply.
• The climate-related environmental benefit is best considered in a global context and the desire to engage the developing world in the reduction effort.

The full report is available here in a PDF.

Senate Energy Committee hearing

The Senate Energy Committee heard testimony on May 20 to discuss modeling climate change legislation. The full committee report, which contains testimony from Energy Information Agency, Enviromental Protection Agency, Congressional Budget Office and Congressional Research Service, is available here.

Climate Change Legislation - The Carbon Conundrum

This is a PowerPoint presentation that is being offered at Basin Electric member annual meetings in 2008.

The Electric Power Research Model (EPRI)

This is a PowerPoint presented by Bryan Hannegan, Vice president, Environment, EPRI, at Rural Electric Statewide Managers Association Meeting in January 2008 called Electric Technologies in a Carbon-Constrained World.

Top of page

 

E-Mail Page  Print  Feedback

• Climate Change
• Our Position
• Glossary

 

 Hot Topic: Carbon

Part I Cost of legislation to be born by consumers.
Part II Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007, cap-and-trade legislation.
Part III Basin Electric supports reasonable climate change legislation. 
Part IV U.S Chamber of Commerce voices opposition to Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.
Part V National Rural Electric Cooperative Association encourages cooperative stakeholders to take action.